shell_batch

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: single shared process/session, per-command exit codes and output, and optional fail-fast. It omits important traits for arbitrary shell execution — whether root privileges are required, whether the session persists between calls, whether timeout applies per command or to the whole batch, and how output is truncated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with the rationale clause last. No filler, and the hard 200-command cap is stated up front where an agent will see it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is correctly omitted, and the batching model is conveyed. For a high-blast-radius arbitrary shell tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, gaps around permissions/root requirement, timeout semantics, and output truncation leave the agent under-informed before invoking it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and only partly does: "1..200" clarifies the commands array bounds, "optional fail-fast" maps to stop_on_error, and "Root session" hints at root. It says nothing about timeout (per-command vs total), max_output_bytes truncation behavior, or the label field.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Run 1..200 CLI commands") plus a scope constraint (all in ONE ADB process/Root session), which an agent can distinguish from a single-command tool. It stops short of naming the sibling to use instead (e.g., shell_execute or adb_command), which is what a 5 would require.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Avoids one subprocess/tool call per command" implies the use case is multi-command workloads and is a useful hint, but usage is only implied. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer shell_execute/adb_command for a single command, nor any exclusion or prerequisite condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.